• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Worst Team in ACC History? Wake 2012 might challenge Wake 2011

After this year, which team will be remembered as worst in ACC history?

  • Total voters
    77
  • Poll closed .
This game gives me hope for more ACC wins than I initially thought.
 
That was embarrassing for the ACC. Clemson is a pretty unpredictable team.

stonzm9 said:
(I fully realize that by starting this thread, BC will probably beat Clemson tomorrow...)
Click to expand...

At least I covered all my bases.
 
At least we play both of those teams twice. Not saying we will win all four games, but, I mean come on we should, those teams looked god awful.
 
Thanks ACC/ESPN for making this game unwatchable with Vitale and Patrick.
 
Wow we have a shot at Clemson....and they aren't getting appreciably better next year.
 
When will the glory days of the ACC return? Used to be so many personalities and stars.
 
Clemson is nowhere close to as bad as BC. BC had a pretty decent game. They were still horrific on the offensive glass, but shot 60% eFG and shot half as many free throws as they took field goals. Clemson on the other hand did pretty much nothing well besides rebound the ball
 
Clemson has one of the lowest luck factors on kenpom.

My take is that they are overrated per kenpom.
 
If Clemson allows a team to have a decent field goal percentage they lose almost every single game they play (clearly). Furthermore their pace doesn't appear to help them at all in really any aspect of the game aside from forcing some bad shots from the opponent.
 
RJKarl said:
quantyifying luck-yeah right.
Click to expand...

It's not the typical definition of "luck", I think it would more aptly be characterized as "deviation from the norm". Basically teams with high luck numbers win close games and then get blown out when they lose. It's calculated as a deviation from what the expected simulation would be.

If Wake had gone 30-0 this year, they would have almost certainly been number one in luck because we know that the base for this team is somewhere around the 13-15 win total.
 
RJKarl said:
quantyifying luck-yeah right.
Click to expand...

luck is the difference between Clemson's expected record using kenpom and what their record actually is.

Teams with high luck factors (Wake/Maryland) are likely candidates to be underrated by the rating system, and teams with low factors the opposite.
 
The concept of "luck" in sports is just so silly to me. Shot rims out, "oh, so unlucky!" No, it wasn't "unlucky," it just wasn't a good enough shot to go through the basket. Simple as that.

"He was 'unlucky' that the ball went off his hand last. No, he wasn't. He put his hand in that spot and as a result the ball deflected off of him and out of bounds. Where is "luck" involved in that? It's just so preposterous, IMO.
 
Looking at Clemson and Maryland provides a pretty good dichotomy of the two sides of the luck equation:

Maryland is second in the nation in luck. They are 11-4 and have no wins by more than 12 points despite playing the 262nd hardest schedule in the country. They have as many losses by fewer than 10 points (2) as they do by 20+ (2).

Clemson on the other hand is 335th in the nation in luck. They are 9-7 overall. They have won each of the 9 games by 8+ points and 7 of the 9 have been by double digits. 6 of the 9 have been won by more than 15 points. Of their 7 losses 4 of them have been by one possession (3 or fewer points), and only two have been double digit losses.

It's just an example but pretty much encapsulates the extremes and reasonable application of the luck quotient.

Furthermore this probably describes why people on here think Clemson is awful (aside from the eye test of actually watching that horrific game last night). Clemson is 80 spots higher on KenPom because over the course of 10,000 seasons, Clemson would be better than Maryland in a large number of them. This is further substantiated by the efficiency numbers that KenPom uses and is the basis for the entire system. Despite being 9-7 and Maryland be 11-4, Clemson would beat Maryland probably 65% of the time they played (the one matchup for the season is in Death Valley and Clemson has an 80% shot of winning with an average score of 69-60).

The fun part is that while KenPom is good for projections, every game and season is only played once so every now and then you have your 1 in 10,000 season and make noise throughout the year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top